ML20211P063
| ML20211P063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/14/1986 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Trivelpiece A ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607220189 | |
| Download: ML20211P063 (5) | |
Text
-
'*
- o#
- ^
UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
h._
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 e
k July 14, 1986 Dr. Alvin W. Trivelpiece Director, Office of Energy Research Department of Energy Washington, D. C.
20585
Dear Dr. Trivelpiece:
Thank you for your informative letter of May 20, 1986 outlining the actions being taken by the Department of Energy to assure successful and timely implementation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rule requiring the conversion of licensed non-power reactors from the use of high enriched uranium fuel. Thoughtful and effective planning for the conversions of university reactors is evident. My staff has briefed me on the meeting held on May 20, and I feel confident that our objectives can be achieved.
You stated in your letter that since the DOE has no programmatic responsi-bilities or relationships with non-university licensees, you would prefer not to have to handle their conversions if reasonable alternatives are available to the NRC.
In developing the rule, the Commission considered the question of Federal Government funding and support for conversions of non-university research reactors. Public comments, staff views and individual Commissioners' positions were carefully weighed and factored into the final regulation. We believe that this position is consistent with the national policy to encourage conversion by users of HEU in non-power reactors.
Since the DOE already is so heavily involved in the conversion implemen-tation effort, both through the Office of Energy Research and the Office of Nuclear Energy, we believe that Government resources would be used most efficiently and effectively if DOE were to provide the funding and related i
support for conversion of all licensed non-power reactors.
In addition to l
the 20 university reactors, the rule addresses 1 Government-owned reactor (National Bureau of Standards) and 4 industrial reactors (Cintichem, GA Technologies, General Electric and Westinghouse). These facilities represent important national resources for basic research, testing and radiopharmaceutical production. Since there are no obvious alternatives to DOE funding, I urge you to reconsider your position. We would like to continue to work with you to resolve this issue and I believe that the Commission would support DOE requests for funding for this purpose.
I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further if you so desire. The NRC point of contact for the overall conversion implementation g
is Mr. Robert Carter.
f)
\\
Sincerely, k.\\ \\
V kW Harold R. Denton, D' rector Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation hon.2ot89 m
e t
Dr. Alvin W. Trivelpiece Director, Office of Energy Research Department of' Energy Washington, D. C.
20585
Dear Dr. Trivelpiece:
Thank you for your informative letter of May 20, 1986 outlining the actions being taken by the Department of Energy to assure successful and timely implementation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rule requiring the conversion of licensed non-power reactors from the use of high enriched uranium fuel.
Full comprehension of the issues and thoughtful planning are both evident. My staff has briefed me on the meeting held May 20, and I feel confident that close cooperation will continue.
You stated in your letter that since the DOE has no programmatic responsi-bilities or relationships with non-university licensees, you would prefer not to have to handle their conversions if reasonable alternatives are available to the NRC.
In developing the rule, the Commission thoroughly considered the question of Federal Government funding and support for conversions of non-university research reactors. Public comments, staff views and individual Commissioners' positions were carefully weighed and factored into the final regulation.
It is believed that this position is consistent with the national policy to encourage conversion by users of HEU in non-power reactors.
Since the DOE already is so heavily involved in the conversion implemen-tation effort, both through the Office of Energy Research and the Office of Nuclear Energy, we believe that Government resources would be used most efficiently and effectively if DOE were to provide the funding and related support for conversion of all licensed non-power reactors. Therefore, I urge you to reconsider your position on this matter.
I believe that the Commission would support DOE requests for funding for this purpose.
I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further if you so desire. The NRC point of contact for the overall conversion implementation is Mr. Robert Carter.
i Sincerely, l
l l
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
/bs l
l l
Office:
SSPD SL/SSPD D c -
D/DPL D/NRR Concurrees: RCarter/jm DTondi$5' LHB rkow FM a HDenton Date:
6/ / o/86 6/ go /86 (6/(p/86 6/
6 6/
/86
i July 14, 1986 Dr. Alvin W. Trivelpiece Director, Office of Energy Research Department of Energy Washington, D. C.
20585
Dear Dr. Trivelpiece:
Thank you for your informative letter of May 20, 1986 outlining the actions being taken by the Department of Energy to assure successful and timely implementation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rule requiring the conversion of licensed non-power reactors from the use of high enriched uranium fuel. Thoughtful and effective planning for the conversions of university reactors is evident. My staff has briefed me on the meeting held on May 20, and I feel confident that our objectives can be achieved.
You stated in your letter that since the DOE has no programmatic responsi-bilities or relationships with non-university licensees, you would prefer not to have to handle their conversions if reasonable alternatives are available to the NRC.
In developing the rule, the Commission considered the question of Federal Government funding and support for conversions of non-university research reactors. Public comments, staff views and individual Commissioners' positions were carefully weighed and factored into the final regulation. We believe that this position is consistent with the national policy to encourage conversion by users of HEU in non-power reactors.
Since the DOE already is so heavily involved in the conversion implemen-tation effort, both through the Office of Energy Research and the Office of Nuclear Energy, we believe that Government resources would be used most efficiently and effectively if DOE were to provide the funding and related support for conversion of all licensed non-power reactors.
In addition to the 20 university reactors, the rule addresses 1 Government-owned reactor (National Bureau of Standards) and 4 industrial reactors (Cintichem, GA Technologies, General Electric and Westinghouse). These facilities represent important national resources for basic research, testing and i
radiopharmaceutical production. Since there are no obvious alternatives to DOE funding, I urge you to reconsider your position. We would like to continue to work with you to resolve this issue and I believe that the Commission would support DOE requests for funding for this purpose.
I would De happy to meet with you to discuss this further if you so desire. The NRC point of contact for the overall conversion implementation 1s Mr. Robert Carter.
l Sincerely, Original signed by R. Vollmer for i
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- See Previous Concurrence Office:
SSPD*
SL/SSPD*
D/SSPD*
D/DPLB*
D/
'f-l Concurrees:
RCarter/jm DTondi HBerkow FMiraglia H Date:
6/10/86 6/10/86 7/11/86 7/14/86 7
/86
l Dr. Alvin W. Trivelpiece Director, Office of Energy Research Department of Energy Washington, D. C.
20585
Dear Dr. Trivelpiece:
Thank you for your informative letter of May 20, 1986 outlining the actions being taken by the Department of Energy to assure successful and timely implementation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rule requiring the conversion of licensed non-power reactors from the use of high enriched uranium fuel. Thoughtful planning for the conversions is evident. My staff has briefed me on the meeting held on May 20, and I feel confident that our objectives can be achieved.
You stated in your letter that since the DOE has no progranrnatic responsi-bilities or relationships with non-university licensees, you would prefer not to have to handle their conversions if reasonable alternatives are available to the NRC.
In developing the rule, the Commission considered the question of Federal Government funding and support for conversions of non-university research reactors.
Public comments, staff views and individual Commissioners' positions were carefully weighed and factored into the final regulation. We believe that this position is consistent with the national policy to encourage conversion by users of HEU in non-power reactors.
Since the DOE already is so heavily involved in the conversion implemen-tation effort, both through the Office of Energy Research and the Office of Nuclear Energy, we believe that Government resources would be used most efficiently and effectively if DOE were to provide the funding and related support for conversion of all licensed non-power reactors.
In addition to the 20 university reactors, the rule addresses 1 Government-owned reactor (National Bureau of Standards) and 4 industrial reactors (Cintichem, GA Technologies, General Electric and Westinghouse). These facilities represent important national resources for basic research, testing and radiopharmaceutical production. Since there are no obvious alternatives to DOE funding, I urge you to reconsider your position. We would like to continue to work with you to resolve this issue and I believe that the Commission would support DOE requests for funding for this purpose.
I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further if you so desire. The NRC point of contact for the overall conversion implementation is Mr. Robert Carter.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation d %$
- See Previous Concurrence pfSMq D
D/NRR Office:
SSPD*
SL/SSPD*
FMifaglia HDenton Concurrees: RCarter/jm DTondi HBerl ow Date:
6/10/86 6/10/86
/ ) g /861)/
6 1/
/86
Distribution Copies:
TDorian, ELD
.HBerkow
~
DTondi
~RCarter f
4 l
l i
t